Reddit mentions: The best legal rules & procedures law books

I think part of the problem is really that people are looking at only granular parts of problems today and don't have enough historical context. Its useless to follow every story about everyone and every little thing. There are lots of ups and downs in politics and there's no reason to be so reactionary to every single new and probably manufactured "scandal".... that's what's exhausting. I like to keep updated on a few big issues, I follow the careers of a few people I find inspiring (and follow a few that do things that worry me), and spend the rest of the time reading up on topics in book form... they have the advantage of being written over time, and with more vigorous standards for accuracy. The news, while still important where immediate info is necessary, is essentially click bait now. You don't need to get caught in the rip tides that pull you everywhere constantly, just understand the general trajectory of the important things.

edit: to those curious about some book recommendations: I'm by no means an expert in anything really, and the books you read should really be about the topics you personally are interested in, so don't take my word as gospel (or any author's). I like American history, ancient history, international relations, and though I think they're more boring I force myself to read about the health care system and the American education system because I feel they're important. I'm also looking to read some books on the military industrial complex and cyber security/ big data because I don't really know anything about them other than the stuff I see in passing on the news or here on Reddit. So if anyone knows a good overview of those issues, feel free to let me know.

• For a good start on human history and the beginnings of modern economics/ intl relations (basically why the West has historically dominated), try Guns, Germs, and Steel I believe there's also a documentary if the book is too dense for your taste (it is pretty dense).
  
  
• Perhaps if you're interested in why people get so damn heated talking politics, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation
  
  
• If you wonder why people vote against their own social and economic interest: What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America Full disclosure: I liked this book, but I lean left. I'm not sure if it matters, the point of the book is just to track how the Republican party went from being the party of elites, to the party of blue collar workers.
  
  
• If the Supreme Court interests you at all, I liked Jeffrey Toobin's, The Nine
  
  
• The achievement gap? Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria
  
  
• Health care? There's a lot, but this one is an easy read and it compares the systems of Britain, Japan, Germany, and I believe Cuba (which is very good for their GDP!) and the US's. The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care by T.R. Reid
  
  This is just some stuff I've listed off the top of my head. Another thing that I find helpful to better understanding intl relations are books about the major genocides of the past few decades, which are hard to get through (because of the brutal content) but... What is the What (Sudan), First they killed my father (Cambodian genocide), Girl at War (more of a autobiography, but still chilling) there's a couple of others I've read that I can't remember now.
  
  Anyway, just go to Good Reads and look at Contemporary Politics. Perhaps Great Courses has a political philosophy course too that you can draw from if you wanna go even farther back into the origins of society's structure and political thought.
  
  Also podcasts! I've just discovered these but there's a lot of audio content (FREE!) that you can listen to on your commute and whatnot. I like Abe Lincoln's Top Hat right now.
  
  Edit edit: wow thanks for the gold!!

Manhunt by Peter Bergen is about the ten-year hunt for Osama bin Laden by the United States government, written by the only Western journalist to ever interview OBL. It's hard to find someone involved in the hunt whom he didn't interview, and the result is fantastically fair and even-handed.

If you're looking at something a bit more big-picture, The Art of Intelligence by Henry Crumpton is a solid overview of modern intelligence operations as framed by his career. It's not for cynics, but it's a good read nonetheless.

I also went on a Supreme Court-related kick this summer after the Obamacare decision. The definitive look at how the Supreme Court functions comes courtesy of Bob Woodward's The Brethren. He wrote it 25ish years ago with Supreme Court insiders (including a former Justice) as sources. The subject matter is a little historical (he covers the Burger court from 1969 to 1975) and at times a little technical (I'm a SCOTUS dork and even I had to look a few things up) but if you're interested in how the Court actually works, it's essential reading. I highly recommend the chapter on the 1973 term - Woodward devotes at least 50+ pages to their ruling in United States v. Nixon (the Watergate case) with a blow-by-blow account of Watergate from the Supreme Court's perspective. If you're a constitutional dork like me, it's both heartening and heart-pounding.

For a more recent perspective on the Supreme Court, Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine is worth checking out. He writes about the Rehnquist Court from about 1992 to 2006, and while it's neither as well-written nor as neutral as Woodward's book, it's still pretty insightful about the current Court's jurisprudential disposition.

You can choose to believe whatever you want. The law is systematically in favored of white. But this act was definitely racially motivated; racial profiling happens in a subconscious level, as substantiated by Zimmerman's following of Martin. The fact that Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious has a lot more to do with merely the clothes he was wearing. Don't be naive.

>Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. ...
Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

How about this for facts about the law? Blacks are a lot more (4-7 times) to be stopped and searched and convicted of crimes

[How about the fact that Blacks Who Stand Their Ground Often Imprisoned?] (http://newamericamedia.org/2013/07/blacks-who-stand-their-ground-often-imprisoned.php)

A funny thing about the law system in the U.S. (and elsewhere of course) is that people who have the privilege of being favored under the law system either think that it works perfectly or do not have enough experience to know that it is flawed; however those who have been disadvantaged by the institution know how bad it is.

Patricia Ewick and Susan Sibley wrote an amazing book called "In Litigation: Do the "Haves" Still Come Out Ahead?" where they identify the three categories of 1. Before the Law. 2. With the Law and 3. Up Against the Law, highlighting the problems of the law and court system in the U.S.

Some exerpts

It is a white privilege to be able to buy into the narrative that it was justified for Zimmerman to follow Martin. And reddit, mostly consisting of white males, age 18-25, would jump at the chances to relentlessly defend Zimmerman as if this incident has nothing to do with his responsbilities.

Seconding those, and I'd also suggest William Rehnquist's history of the court. It's less of what you're looking for than the books VIJoe suggested, but it provides some interesting contexts and gives a clearer idea of the nitty-gritty of how the court works than most anything else. For obvious reasons, it doesn't cover much in the way of specific cases during his tenure on the court, and has a few problems with bias but it's an interesting read nonetheless. (If you want a good supplement for much of the Rehnquist era, Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine is an entertaining read that gives good context. Some of it should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's worth a glance.)

I haven't read it yet and can't speak to how well it fits the OP's criteria, but I hear very good things about John Paul Stevens's recently-published memoir.

If you want to go really in-depth and particularly technical with this sort of thing, I'd recommend picking up a few of the Examples & Explanations books that law students use as study aids. They're a hell of a lot more dry than any of these recommendations, and they'll include a wider range of cases than you're looking for, but you might find them interesting.

However, note that important legal cases that lead to serious revisions of legal principles are often more boring than painting grass and watching it dry as it grows.

Thanks! (he said hoping that you weren't being sarcastic)

Yeah if you're interested in critical responses to the legal formalist model (which is the model that says that law should be this rationally consistent system of principles that can be merely applied by judges--pretty much the basic thing you learn in civics class) I can suggest reading Sociological Jurisprudence and the Legal Realist critiques as a starting point because they are pretty well known (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and Roscoe Pound for the former, Karl Llewellyn and Jerome Frank for the latter).

Then maybe you want to look at some of the Critical Legal Studies movement, which basically says that the law is a social tool used to systematically disadvantage certain groups in society--women, people of color, homosexuals, etc--while maintaining the illusion of moral superiority by hiding behind the idea that "the law" is this perfect, reasonable system divorced from political and social concerns. Though while I see their arguments' value I find CLS either incredibly dull and repetitive or upsettingly polemic and inflammatory.

I find the most compelling work to be the relatively new field of Judicial Politics though, since it kind of brings social science tools (like behavioral models) to bear on the judiciary. The seminal model here is definitely Segel and Spaeth although there has been some movement since then obviously. Basically this says that judges decide how to vote based on their policy preferences, just like Congressman decide how to vote based on their policy preferences, and then just come up with a legal reason (not necessarily consciously so, but you can tell a lot more about how a Supreme Court Justice will behave in the future by looking at their policy preferences than by looking at their legal opinions). Not that there aren't plenty of problems in this field (like I said, the Formalist Model was so dominant for so long that people really haven't been studying the judiciary in a social scientific way for very long) but I think that everyone who is at all interested in either Law or Public Policy needs to read at least some of their work.

Sorry for the massive reading list, but I figured you rarely get the opportunity to actually change someone's mind on the internet!

I should always be working on my dissertation, I feel, but that's not always possible. Subtle difference.

As for reading? The go-to books are Segal and Spaeth, Epstein and Knight, and for a bonus, Maltzman, Spriggs, and Wahlbeck. Also, take a gander at Esptein's CV or any of the authors listed. They sometimes have accessible (re: free) articles. Epstein's CV also includes access to the Judicial Common Space scores, which are ideology scores for the Supreme Court.

As for what I want to be researching? Legitimacy, without a doubt. The globalization of law. Law as a recolonizing tool. Comparative constitutional structures. Symbols of law in pop culture. There are a myriad of things that interest me with several common themes.

I would recommend brushing up on American History. That was the one thing I played catch-up on. It’s amazing how much it helps when reading cases. The historical context and political climate will often help you make sense of a ruling that otherwise seems completely arbitrary. I spent much of my “free” time reading books about historical events and found it to be very helpful. If you want books that are law related, but not necessarily about law, I loved The Nine and Ivy Briefs. Don't worry too much about knowing legal stuff beforehand, you don't want to start school burnt out and stressed out, let your professors take care of that for you.

I practice PI defense and found Winning at Deposition to be amazing: https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Deposition-Highest-Professional-Excellence/dp/0985027177. The only drawback is that PI defense is state law and this book, like most deposition guides, focuses on federal rules.

Be sure to read every rule in your jurisdiction concerning depositions. It won't take more than an hour, but the knowledge you learn is invaluable. I'm constantly amazed and embarrassed at how few attorneys do this.

I would also read as many deposition transcripts as possible. You'll quickly be able to pick up on the tricks and strategies that make depositions successful. Ask fellow attorneys at your firm for names of cases involving similar allegations to your current case. Each time you have to prepare to depose a certain type of witness (plaintiff, plaintiff's spouse/children, treating physician, voc rehab, economist, etc), read two or three depositions of similar witnesses from those cases. This will help you create your outline because you'll see that many of the same topics are covered in each dep.

Try to get your outlines finished a week before the depositions. Share them and discuss them with the supervising attorney(s) on the case. Ask for their feedback. They will be able to help refine the outlines and should offer pointed advice as to what information you should focus on during the deposition.

Finally, remember that everyone was a new attorney. You're going to be nervous and trip up and take longer to get where you want to go the first few times you take a deposition. Jerk attorneys will act annoyed and try to bully you. Ignore them.

Passing the bar was the hard part. Taking depositions is easy!

Good luck. You're gonna kick ass!

The Five Types of Legal Argument is a good primer on what types of arguments are used in the courts that generate case law. Chemerinsky's Constitutional Law is an excellent resource for constitutional law, which is some of the more interesting stuff. The Nine is an easy read and a good introduction to the personalities and major decisions of the Rehnquist court and early Roberts court. Dressler's Understanding Criminal Law is another good one; it explains the general architecture of criminal law and its development. Those might be available at libraries near you. If there's a law library in your area, you can always grab a legal encyclopedia (like American Jurisprudence 2d. or Corpus Juris Secondum) and a Black's Law Dictionary and flip around until you find something interesting. And as others have mentioned, BarBri is a good resource.

You are taking the word supreme literally. It's not infallible. Yet people listen to it as it is bound by the existing law of the land at that point in time. The same arguments need hold good when Taj gets demolished next.

Quote by George Orwell:

The truth was erased, the erasure forgotten, then became the lie, truth

Refer to the comment of previous CJI JS Verma. There is a book too:

Supreme But Not Infallible: Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India
https://www.amazon.in/dp/0195653793/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_ZJ.XDbH2KQKHD

Drafting Patents for Litigation and Licensing has lots of great information. It's quite pricey, but gives lots of great insight.

The best teacher is an experienced patent attorney, though.

Books specifically about the supreme Court or books written by supreme court justices? I would recommend http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0314184716?pc_redir=1404103002&robot_redir=1

Its a great desktop reference

> we are allowed to amend the constitution, and declare parts to be unconstitutional.

You are effectively saying, we declare parts of the constitution unconstitutional. That sounds pretty silly and it's not correct. The constitution has been interpreted over 200 years in case-law. Constitutional Law is all about how the courts have applied the Constitution -- down to very technical aspects.

Of course, Justices can reinterpret the constitution and its application. It's looked down upon. Since Bush Jr. appointed Alito and Roberts, the Supreme Court has changed a lot of interpretation that had been around for a long time. Jefferey Toobin, author of The Nine, wrote about the new Supreme Court, never have "so few so quickly changed so much."

I'll probably get down voted for this but... try reading "The Tempting of America" by Robert Bork. Yeah, the controversial conservative judge. An upperclassman suggested I read this during my Con Law class, and it was a much more interesting way to understand a lot of the conservative vs. liberal wrangling over cases like Roe v Wade. I think it will be a good read even if you lean to the left.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Tempting-America-Robert-Bork/dp/0684843374

P.S. good choice of careers. Personally I'm pushing my kids to fields like C.S. versus the law.

Hiya! Where have ya been?

Ok so if you normally like to tease him:

[The Comic Toolbox: How to Be Funny Even If You're Not] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1879505215/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_O2eVAb1688K79) and [Law School in a Box: All the Prestige for a Fraction of the Price] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594741468/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_m-eVAb9K1X382)

Or if you want to encourage him: Step by Step to Stand-Up Comedy and [The Tools of Argument: How the Best Lawyers Think, Argue, and Win] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1481246380/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_zbfVAb6E6NG1V) and you can write him encouraging notes inside the covers.

I believe the 5th is the most current (if not you should still be okay). The supplements are well, supplements. You could get by generally without them but if you're going to john hammond it buy that as well. (If you have access to Lexis or Westlaw they're not as necessary b/c you can just look at the most recent cases)

I can 100% guarantee the first time you have a procedural issue and open up that book it will make you HAPPY.

Edit: This is the one I bought - http://www.amazon.com/New-York-Practice-5th-Student/dp/0314278419/ref=pd_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=51BBMS8C7PL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR117%2C160_&refRID=0JS35F9S9X6H8R4FB9GF

It’s been along time since I was in law school, but this series allowed me to book several classes, one of which I learned nothing from the professor and all from this book. Seriously good study companion. https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Procedure-6th-Examples-Explanations/dp/0735570337/ref=asc_df_0735570337/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=266180140297&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11575953741332550370&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=200534&hvtargid=pla-804780658992&psc=1

It’s particularly helpful because it has little worksheets at the end of each chapter that allows you to apply the lessons of each chapter, unlike most treatises that just summarize it for you. It’s a practical guide, and it helps immensely with understanding the concepts and being able to apply it to different backgrounds.

That sounds like something that would be in the "... for dummies" series if it weren't a legal topic. I think the Nutshell series is the legal equivalent, but it doesn't quite sound like what you want. Between Black's dictionary and this book though, she might be able to figure out what she needs:

http://www.amazon.com/Contracts-Nutshell-In-West-Publishing/dp/0314169245


And if you aren't familiar with the "... for dummies" series, it's not an insult. They have a series of books that attempt to break concepts/topics down into easy to understand terms. Some are really good books on a topic.

OH MY GOD I have been waiting for this post!!!!

Best legal writing book I have ever seen is: Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges -- By Antonin (SCOTUS Justice) Scalia and Brian Garner.

It is AMAZING.

Here is the link: https://www.amazon.com/Making-Your-Case-Persuading-Judges/dp/0314184716/ref=asc_df_0314184716/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312142542416&hvpos=1o4&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8044996114739830784&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9021716&hvtargid=pla-489109186761&psc=1

To go in a direction other than the "don't go to lawl school!!!!" and super-serious commenters, if you want something accessible to give you some exposure to legal issues, I would absolutely recommend The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin. It's an easy read and a good mix of law and institutional politics.

Now that is good. For $11 I’ll give it a go.

https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Inside-Secret-World-Supreme/dp/1400096790

Surprisingly more expensive on kindle, so paperback it is. Looks like a decent book. Thanks man!

If you want to veer off into the workings of the Supreme Court (a crazy bunch of individuals), there are some great nonfiction books. Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine looks at the dynamics of the Court from the Reagan administration on. Jeff Shesol's Supreme Power is about FDR's plan to pack the Court when they kept ruling his New Deal laws as unconstitutional. FDR is kind of a badass.

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

Admittedly, I'm a bit biased since T-mac was my professor, but Tracy McCormack is the head of Advocacy at TexasLaw, and co-authored a pretty good book on the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/First-Trial-Nutshell-Publishing-Nutshells/dp/0314211594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478875255&sr=8-1&keywords=Tracy+McCormack

not only that, the chain of evidence must be established to ensure that the samples were not tampered with. regarding scientific evidence, the scientist being questioned must have their credentials verified and the judge has to formally FIND the witness admitted as an expert witness, depending on the jurisdiction the Frye Test or Daubert would control. Evidentiary Foundations is a GREAT resource for how to lay proper foundation for testimony.

I really enjoyed The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin

Dude, all of this is wrong. I am actually almost certain you're fucking with me. Statutory law is law written into statute. Common Law is law found in precedent from prior decisions; look up stare decisis and precedent.

Equity and admiralty are not jurisdictions, they're types of law. Also, there are more than those. The constitution grants federal courts jurisdiction for certain types of cases, amdiralty being one of them.

Your read up and understanding of Erie is off as well. Erie essentially says that diversity cases(a type of jurisdiction under the constitution) does not allow federal courts to make common law. Rather, they have to use one of the states from the diversity plaintiffs.

Read this and get back to me.

Haven't actually read it, so I don't know if it's any good, but I wish I could find the time to read The Litigation State. Maybe that's something you'd be interested in.

Have you read The Nine by Jeffery Toobin? (he's an attorney and supreme court historian for The New Yorker) He lays out a pretty good argument for the court having entered an ideological era (bush v. gore - present) where their decisions are basically just the political will of their appointers. I'm pretty much inclined to (mostly) agree with him. I don't think it's unfortunate people acknowledge this as something that exists to a certain extent.

That said, the court still at least tries to play within precedent and congressional intent so I think the community could probably say "hey, these are the boundaries the court operates within and here are the spots we think they'll do some mental gymnastics to get to the decision the 5-4 split wants." Of course Kennedy could come down either way, but he sounded... well, senile during oral arguments. I think he asked a question about tort law at one point which makes me think he's not even sure where he is anymore.

I am not sure if there is a better source out there, but he did write a book that gives some insight into his legal reasoning that you might find helpful:

"The Tempting of America" Robert Bork

http://www.amazon.com/The-Tempting-America-Robert-Bork/dp/0684843374

EDIT: As a preamble to my response, sorry for above, it was ruder than I intended. Too often people blather on with inane/extreme argument, and I get impatient. It wasn't fair of me to respond in such a way.

Honestly, as someone with a PoliSci background, it's debatable (not being a smartass, btw).

Firstly, not just the first 10 are. Im pretty sure everyone has the natural right to NOT be a slave, but that wasn't promised until the 13th.

Depending on perspective, it can be said that only 1, 13, 15, and 19 are. The overall argument being that natural rights refer to those bestowed by God/the universe/and everything. Your personal right to speak, right to belief, right to self-determination, etc. These are your natural rights.

Snarky example: did God make that AK for you, personally? Oh, no? Then it ain't a natural right.

Serious example: goverment is charging you with something and you need representation/want to face your accuser/etc? Government has a regiment of soldiers stashed in your house? (FYI, I believe these are terrible things)

These are legal rights/issues, NOT those bestowed by the universe et all.

Ultimately, no, our amendments are not our natural rights -- they are an early attempt at formally codifying what were believed to be the primary rights of an individual. But, these were heavily determined by the perspectives of those doing the writing--thoughtful, philosophical, industrious, rebellious, white male, land/business owners. Non-whites were all but excluded excluded from our so-called natural rights because they were widely seen as lesser beings in enlightenment thought. The amendments reflect well-meaning, but outdated sentiments. In my opinion, the Bill of Rights is, in many ways, like the Magna Carta. A revolutionary (literally) document that should be treasured for its historical perspectives, but is ultimately useless to the modern world.

On a different note, too often people claim things as rights that are not, in fact, rights. It's an inefficient way to frame arguments. For example, when smoking bans were first discussed: "We should ban smoking in public places because it impacts my right to clean air!" "We should NOT ban smoking in public places because it's my right to smoke where I please!"

This is unhealthy, ineffectual, and is largely responsible for the failures of our current systems. Here is an interesting book on the subject.


This is not an attempt to preach one-sided politics or be obtuse, just an honest reflection.

EDIT 2: Formatting & TL;DR - Founding fathers were pretty cool guys, but they didn't know everything. As a nation we need to learn to accept, and address this.

The Innocent Man. It was largely responsible for the answer that I give when people ask me why I am an ADA- Someone is going to do this job. I trust myself to question, to work, not to slide into laziness or complacency. I don't trust others to do a job this important. I do it because it matters.

But as for why the law in general? When I was in high school I read The Tempting of America. I could not have disagreed with it more strongly. I STILL inherently disagree with basically the entirety of Robert Bork's jurisprudence. However, it was an eye opener- this is what "the law" is about. It showed me that the law can have both big ideas and petty squabbles, and that they can both be equally interesting.

There is a fantastic book by Mary Ann Glendon called Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse that addresses this issue quite eloquently. If you haven't read it, please do. It is a very important book.

Here it is on Amazon

Evidentiary Foundations by Imwinkelried. Great book. Schooled some DAs with it.

http://www.amazon.com/Evidentiary-Foundations-Edward-J-Imwinkelried/dp/0820554170

We need to be careful whenever we engage in "rights" talk, though (see [Mary Ann Glendon's book on the subject] (http://www.amazon.com/Rights-Talk-Impoverishment-Political-Discourse/dp/0029118239/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1372372374&sr=8-3&keywords=Mary+Ann+Glendon)). We are still feeling our way down a dark corridor on what "expectation of privacy" means in cyberspace, for instance. And it simply won't do to assert an unlimited expectation of privacy...

Well, I would highly recommend renting some textbooks on American politics, American political history, and American political theory. Perhaps start here and work your way up: http://www.amazon.com/Logic-American-Politics-Samuel-Kernell/dp/1568028911

If you find textbooks too dull, then here is a good list of books to get you started:

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Federalist-Anti-Federalist-Papers/dp/1495446697/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453181599&sr=1-1&keywords=federalist+and+anti-federalist+papers

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-America-Penguin-Classics-Tocqueville/dp/0140447601

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ideological-Origins-American-Revolution/dp/0674443020

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Reconstruction-America-1860-1880-Burghardt/dp/0684856573

http://www.amazon.com/The-Nine-Inside-Secret-Supreme/dp/1400096790

http://www.amazon.com/Congress-Electoral-Connection-Second-Edition/dp/0300105878

http://www.amazon.com/What-Should-Know-About-Politics/dp/1611452996

http://www.amazon.com/The-Race-between-Education-Technology/dp/0674035305

http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/1491534656

*If you actually take the time to read these, you will be better informed than 99 percent of the voting public. <-- And after you read these, that sentence will terrify you because you will realize each of these books is just an introduction, and the world is being run by technocrats. JK, but not really.

Edit: But really.

Well, Epstein and Knight, who literally wrote the book on how the Supreme Court makes decisions, disagree with him.

I used to live by the [Insert Law Subject Here] in a Nutshell series, e.g. Contracts in a Nutshell

They cover dozens of topics, and are always in small paperback form, which is a nice change of pace when one gets sick of carrying 5kg hardbacks to class.

I always thought the series did a nice job of introducing topics in a generalized way and then slowly narrowing the discussion until the details had a solid context.

I was just thinking about that, too. It's crazy how many 5-4 decisions. Jeffery Toobin talks a little about it in his book The Nine a good read if this kind of thing interests you.

Pick up a copy of Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges. Some guy named Scalia wrote it.

A book.

• The Nine
  
• Gideon's Trumpet
  
• Make No Law
  
• Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul
  
  >What about readings like The Federalist Papers
  
  Don't be that guy. Seriously.

If you're in litigation, I've seen this mentioned frequently.

>Arguments are expected to be supported with reason and data, and not only authority.

Agreed friend!

This:
>"Well, the Bible says...".

Is an absolutely terrible reason to believe in anything.

What's troubling is when my friends claim rights impede social progress and are ridiculed simply because they quote a Christian author.

Also consider Scalia's Making Your Case, which also includes sections on oral argument.

I searched the name of the book you recommended but couldn't find it. Do you know the authors name?

Wait are those 3 different books?

Edit: Yea I am dumb they are different books. Here they are on amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Simple-Justice-Education-Americas-Struggle/dp/1400030617

https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Young-Lawyer-Mentoring-Paperback/dp/0465016332

https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Action-Jonathan-Harr/dp/0679772677

https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Inside-Secret-World-Supreme/dp/1400096790